Saturday, February 28, 2015

Ideologues of the fallacious social constructivist theory –
really just an a priori dogma -- promote the utterly false notion that women do
not commit physically brutal crimes, that the do not initiate violence, and that
women’s violence when it does come about is the result of excusable “stressors”
or some hard-to-prove “mental illness,” frequently of a “temporary” nature.

The fact is that very little serious study about female
aggression has ever been undertaken. There are several reasons for this,
including chivalry, female scholars’ fallacious gynocentric theories, and the
broader “patriarchy theory” ideology that stands above modern feminism and
which is not specifiically pro-female, but is rather an authoritarian
philosophy that rejects due process and individual rights in favor of a
utopian vision as delineated by Cultural Marxism.

The good news is that a new generation of female
criminologists is coming out of the university system that includes women who –
unlike their male counterparts – have the courage to reject the fallacious
feminist and marxist theories of their elders and who are devoted to uncovering
objective truth.

The following three cases serve as a brief anecdotal
reminder that the propaganda endlessly repeated by the corrupt and profitable
Domestic Violence industry has lulled us into a stupor with its wildly
distorted claims, its fallacious cult-like ideological stance and its cooked
statistics.

***

►Case 1: Mary Miller - 1909

FULL TEXT: Believing her husband unfaithful. Mary Miller, of
Milton, at an early hour Monday morning murdered her husband while he was
asleep, by disembowling him with a razor. Miller had been out late and his wife
being insane with jealousy, entered his room soon after he retired and
committed the deed.

Mrs. Miller was arrested and was sent to Huntington jail.
The remains of the murdered man were also sent there for burial.

FULL TEXT: Freeport, Ill., June 10 – Mrs. Vera Witte, was
held to the grand jury today on a charge of murder for the killing of her
husband, William, yesterday shortly after she lost a suit for separate
maintenance.

She at first showed no sign of regret but today is on the
verge of breakdown. It is expected that a defense of insanity will be made, as
the woman was previously treated at Waterdown asylum.

Freeport, Ill., June 10 – Mrs. Vera Witte, age 30, shot her
husband, William, age 55, near the county building here yesterday afternoon
following the announcement of the failure of her suit for separate maintenance
with a .32 caliber revolver that her husband had given her for Christmas to
protect herself with when he was away at night on his railroad run.

Following the third shot, fired while the victim was on the
sidewalk, Mrs. Witte handed the smoking revolver to Robert Stewart, former
Stephenson county sheriff, who ran towards her, and surrendered with a calm
remark of “I’ve shot my husband.” She walked with him across the street without
protest where Chief of Police Adam Wilkey, took her into custody and formally
charged her with the murder of her husband which may send her to the electric
chair.

Shortly after their marriage in May 1930 the bride objected
to visits of his two full-grown children of a previous marriage. it is said
that they had considerable strife and which is regarded as one of the most
cold-blooded crimes in the history of the county.

She was detained briefly in the city jail and later placed
in the county jail where she shows no remorse or emotion. Only once did she sob
and ask “Is he really dead?” shortly after the shooting. She was formerly
married to Ralph Amoth and she is said to have shot at him in Minneapolis
during a quarrel. Some months ago, on the claim she was deranged, she was sent
away for mental treatment and had but recently returned.

FULL TEXT: Freeport, Ill, Dec. 4 – A jury after three hours
deliberation today convicted Mrs. Vera Witte, of murdering her husband and
fixed her punishment at life imprisonment.

The state charged that Mrs. Witte shot her husband, William,
53, to death in a fit of rage June 9 shortly after Judge William J. Emerson had
denied her separate mainteance.

Judge Harry L. Heer said he would hear motions for a new
trial next week and would pass formal sentence then, if the motion is denied.

The verdict was read before a crowded courtroom. Mrs Witte
swooned and had to assisted to the county jail by deputy sheriffs, whose wives
put her to bed. They reported she appeared stunned and said nothing, staring
vacantly at the ceiling.

Witnesses told police that Mrs. Witte had followed her
husband from the courthouse, took a pistol from a pocket in her auto and shot
him once in the heart and twice in the head.

[“Husband Killer Convicted Will Get Life Term Mrs. Vera
Witte Has To Be Assisted To Jail,” Jacksonville Daily Journal (Il.), Dec. 5,
1931, p. 1]

***

►Case 3: Patricia Holbrook - 1938

FULL TEXT: Benton Harbor, Mich, Oct. 17. –Mrs. Patricia Holbrook, 34, shot and killed
her husband, William, 42, former assistant prosecuting attorney, in front of
the Benton Harbor police station early today, two minutes after she had been
released from custody. Holbrook had asked police a few minutes before to “hold
her awhile so she can’t bother me.”

Special Policeman Pugh witnessed the shooting. He and
another officer seized Mrs. Holbrook and took her back into the station.

She refused to answer questions. “My mind was a blank,” she
said.

Desk Sergeant Eugene Murphy, alone in the station at the
time of the shooting, said Holbrook and his wife had quarreled at their home
until early today over a visit Holbrook had made to his former wife and their
two sons.

“Holbrook left intending to go to a hotel,” Murphy said. His
wife followed him and he came here. He was telling me about the quarrel when
she came in.”

About two minutes after Holbrook had gone, Murphy told Mrs. Holbrook
she could leave.

She hurried out of the station, caught up with her husband,
drew a small, four-shot Derringer from her handbag and fired two shots, hitting
him in the shoulder. Then she fired two more shots, both of which struck him in
the head.

Pugh was nearby. He ran up to her and grabbed the gun. She
was held on an open charge pending the decision of the city prosecutor as to
the charge to be filed against her.

Holbrook had been practicing law here at Kalamazoo, Mich.,
since 1933. Before then he was assistant prosecutor of Berrien County under his
brother, Harvey.

“Her baby farming consisted in drowning the little darlings
in a basin of water, then cutting them up into morsels in her lap, and burying
the remains in her kitchen under the stairs, or in the water-closet.”

Trial testimony:

Judge:
“How did you kill these wretched infants?”

Delpech:
“I was not a free agent.”

Judge:
“These children were found after they had been dead two or three days?”

Delpech:
“Yes, sir; I kept one for two or three days at the foot of my bed!”

Judge:
“You killed them by putting their heads in a pail of water. Is it not so?”

Delpech:
“Yes sir.”

She
chopped up one child.

The
judge then asks, “You suffocated another?”

Delpech:
“Comme l’autre; mon Dieu, oui.”
(“Yes; exactly the same as the others.”)

Judge:
“And you buried it under the staircase?”

Delpech:
“Yes; dug a hole with a shovel.” Here she roared with laughter.

Passage which describes the most shocking of Marie Bleirs’
crimes: “And the crippled boy – who was he? Her own child by Louis Lemberg. In
a moment of horrible passion she severed the limbs of the infant at the joints,
and then gave him to a miserable hag to extort charity. Afterward the idea seized
her that she would like him to repose with the rest, and so she took him to her
dwelling and would have ended his fate but for the timely intervention of the
domestic.”

Annie Tooke, a middle-aged widow, was executed on 11th
August, within Exeter Gaol, for the murder of an illegitimate child which had
been put with her to nurse, the first smothered the child, and then chopped the
body in pieces, and threw the remains into a mill stream.

“The large farm which served as a bait to thrifty
Scandinavian wooers was death chamber and cemetery to all of them. In her house
Mrs. Gunness had a soundproof, double-walled room, bars on the windows, heavy
locks on the door. Here, the victims were chloroformed and given strychnine. If
they rang too stubbornly to life they were dismembered with a hatchet. The
farmyard was one huge cemetery. Underneath the cemented floor of the cellar was
a tomb full of assorted bones.”

“After the floods had partially subsided, a posse of
soldiers went to a farm occupied by a supposed widow. Whilst trying to save
this woman’s household effects they unearthed, below a broken-down matshed,
eight coffins which contained headless, and in some cases, mutilated bodies of
supposed males.”

Human sacrifice cult – “Usually the head of the family would
be marked for slaughter and every person found in the house when the members of
the cult descended upon it would be killed. All the victims were horribly
mutilated. Heads and limbs would be separated from the torsos and strewn all
over the house. From the Barnabet woman’s story it is evident that whenever
every spark of life in the cottage had been extinguished and the degenerates
had completed their work of dismemberment the slayers participated in a
‘sacrificial ceremony.’” [“Forty Murders Charged To Her - Negro Fiend Makes
Startling Confession. - Admits Killing 17 Persons - Fanatic Says She Sought in
This Way to Gain Immortality. – Heads ‘Church of Sacrifice,’” The Hartford
Herald (Ky.), Apr. 10, 1912, p. 2]

Clementine, testifying in court, “told how
the four pickininnies on the floor started to cry out and how with stealthy
tread she approached their trundle beds and swing her ax killed two with one
blow and then lay about her with quick swings hacking the bodies of the two
remaining children until they were scattered in bits about the room.” [“Creole
Tells Of Murdering Ten - Eighteen-Year-Old-Girl Admits Splitting Open Victims
Heads With An Axe - Laughs While Relating Acts - Confessed Criminal Declares
She Slew Because People Refused to Obey Message From God - Alleged Utterings of
Voodoo Doctor.” The Mahoning Dispatch (Canfield, Oh.), Dec. 1, 1911, p. 2]

Hassen, once a famous dancer became a madame for
prostitutes, kidnapped, tortured and serially murdered many young women (as
well as boys). She was discovered to be a serial killer following the discovery
of dismembered body parts of one of her victims. She fed human flesh to her
cats. She was convicted and sentenced to death, but due to her powerful
political connections she was freed to continue her criminal career. Convicted
of new crimes she was sentenced to only 15 years in prison.

“By a ruse, Deputy Prosecutor John Schermer of King county
said, investigators extracted from Mrs. Mary Eleanor Smith a gruesome tale of
hew her son, Earl Decastro Mayer, hammered to death James Eugene Bassett of
Annapolis, in Seattle ten years ago, dismembered his body and hid it in
scattered, secluded spots.”

Felícitas Sánchez Aguillón or Sánchez Neyra (1890 -
June 16, 1941) was a Mexican nurse, midwife, baby farmer and serial killer,
active during the 1930s in Mexico City, who killed babies in her care. It is
estimated that Felícitas
murdered children in numbers ranging from between40 and neatly a hundred. Her victims were
aged from newborn to three years old. Typically she would poison or strangle the
children, according to some reports sometimes she would dismember a child while
still living. Felícitas was
given various sobriquets by the Mexican press, such as "The Ogress of
Colonia Roma", "The Female Ripper of Colonia Roma"
and "The Human Crusher of little angels."

“Two days after Leslie’s [Mahaffy] death Paul and Karla
dismembered the teenager’s body. She would deny taking part in this – but she
had attended animal autopsies [as a veterinary assistant] and knew how to cut
up a cadaver. Karla had written to a friend sayinghow ‘neat’ it was to amputate puppies’ tails
without anaesthetic and she later cut up their pet iguana after Paul had killed
it and ate it with him and her friends. One or both of the couple cut up Leslie’s
corpse with an electric saw, then put each section into a box which Paul filled
with concrete. The hair was sticking out of the concrete block containing the
head so he painted it black to make it less conspicuous. [Carol Ann Davis,
Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers, London: 2001, p. 211]

She is suspected of
3 murders. She shot her 9-year-old
daughter in the head and threw parts of it into the Pacific Ocean from a
boat chartered for whale watching.

“Preliminary autopsy results on body parts found in Huster’s
San Fernando Valley apartment failed to determine a cause of death or the
identity of the victim.” [AP, “No murder charges against woman with
remains in freezer,” The Berkekey Daily Planet (Ca.), Nov. 15, 2000]

Wikipedia states
that in what has been called the Amagasaki
Serial Murder Incident “several family households were tortured
continuously for more than 25 years. These crimes were committed mainly in
Amagasaki, and also in six prefectures, Hyogo, Kochi, Kagawa, Okayama, Shiga
and Kyoto. Many people were abused and imprisoned; at least 8 people were
killed.” Two of the recovered corpses, those of Jiro
Hashimoto, 54-year-old man, and Kazuko Oe, a 66-year-old woman, were
then dismembered and placed in large metal drums, which were filled with
concrete.

1610 – Elizabeth
Bathory – Hungary – sadistically murdered a large number of girls, perhaps
hundreds, torturing them and biting off parts of their bodies. The legend that
she bathed in the blood to preserve her youth is false. The reality of the
“Blood Countess’s” perversions was much worse than the legend. (Serial Killer).

1912 – Ivanova
& Olda Tamarin – Kurdla, Estonia – mother and 17-year old daughter;
leaders of a large gang; daughter lured victims to the Tamarin home where they
were robbed and murdered and cannibalized. 27 corpses were found. (Serial
Killer).

Mrs. Cianciulli claimed the power to
foretell the future, to hypnotise people, and police believe that her three known victims were so influenced by her as a clairvoyant that she
was able to lure them to her neatly kept house, where she murdered them and cut each of
their bodies into nine separate sections.

“The high point of the assembly was drinking of their
victims’ blood mixed with chicken blood in sacrificial goblets. One ritual,
consisting of a beating, burning, and machete hacking, was witnessed by an
outsider who happened upon the scene.”

1981 – Anna
Zimmerman – Germany – murdered boyfriend, cut him into pieces, stored in
freezer and cooked them to serve to her children.

1993 – Carolyn Gloria Blanton; legally changed name to Jane Lynn Woodry –
Alamosa, Colorado – Blanton shot boyfriend Peter Michael Greene four times with
a revolver, dismembered his body, wrapped his torso in a blanket, and stored it
in a closet in his home, but took the legs home to her kitchen. She took
Bite-sized chunks from his legs and cooked a stew with them.

1995 – Filita
Mashilipa – Zambia – prosecuted as a witch who killed and ate six of her
own children in order to gain magical powers (Serial Killer).

1996 – Lyudmila
Spesivtsev – Novosibirsk, Siberia – with son, Sasha, killed an estimated 32
teenage girls, who were raped by the son and cut up and cooked by the mother.

2000 – Katherine
Mary Knight – Aberdeen, NSW, Australia – a woman who had a long history of
violence who murdered her husband, dismembered his corpse and cooked portions
to be served in a diabolical ritual meal to his unwitting children.

2009 – Klara
Mauerova – Brno, Czech Republic – cult member mother tortured her two young
sons mercilessly over a period of six months. She sliced off pieces of one of
the boys’ skin and served the flash to other cult members and forced the victim
to eat portions of his own mutilated body.

2009 – Olesya
Mostovschikova – Irkutsk, Siberia, Russia – murdered a female friend with
an axe and with another female friend cooked at ate portions of the corpse.
Olesya made a chilling detailed confession of her actions.

2009 – “Sunday”
– Southern Sudan – mother who planned to eat her own newborn but ran off when
the child was rescued was caught eating the corpse of another child.

2012 – Bruna
Oliveira da Silviera & Isabel Cristina Pires da Silviera – Garanhuns,
Pernambuco state, Brazil – two women suspected, along with Seňor da Silviera,
of murdering, cooking and eating parts of 10 young women. Some were made into
food sold to villagers. The three belong to a cult that promotes depopulation.
(Serial Killers).

2012 – “Chiang Mai, Thailand Mother” – Chiang Mai, Thailand
– butchered and ate her two young sons – aged 1 and 5 – has claimed she was
hallucinating and thought they were pigs.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

FULL TEXT: The Homan-Earle case, a noteworthy sensation of
last year, is made fresh in public recollection by the argument on the appeal
to the General Term of the City Court. This matter is amusing, contemptible, or
important, according to the point from which it is vowed. It is a paradox of
human nature that the passion of all others commands sympathy – what is
technically termed the “tender passion” – is as often the occasion of mirth as
of sadness. It would be curious to know whether more tears or laughter have
been bestowed by disinterested persons on the woes of lovers. The line which
here divides tragedy and comedy is very indistinct. Certainly there are no
elements of the former in the Holman-Earle case. A mature maiden sues a maturer
widower for damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. There is
nothing tragically respectable in this. Shinplasters cannot mend a broken
heart, even if a broken heart were among the possibilities in these
circumstances. In the dramatic picture we cannot see a distressed creature,
wan, woeful, forsaken, on the edge of suicide, perhaps, but certain to die
somehow of a perpetual pang. We only see a thrifty person disappointed of a
comfortable settlement, and resolved to repair the loss, if possible, by
securing a good round sum of money. This is only amusing where it is not
contemptible. The contempt provoked by the scandal is by no means confined to
the plaintiff. Putting aside her allegations and the testimony by which she
sought to sustain them, the admissions of the defendant, the facts conceded by
the clever, but excessively low toned speech of his counsel, published
yesterday, are enough to cover the defendant with ridicule and with scorn of
the moat contemptuous kind. If, on the one hand, the plaintiff has incurred the
sneers and derision of the public by seeking a moneyed compensation of the
wounding of sensibility that ought to be nursed in delicate privacy, on the
other hand the confessed behavior of the defendant is such not, indeed, as to
“bring his gray hairs in sorrow to the grave:” that would be dignified and
decent, but to make him a laughing stock wherever he goes and whenever he
appears.

Beside these special amusing and contemptible aspects of the
case it presents an important legal question. At the trial Judge Neilson held
that even where there was no express promise to marry an engagement of marriage
might be inferred from circumstances. This has been regarded as a new departure
in marital jurisprudence. The able jurist who announced the rule expressed
himself with customary clearness and emphasis. So far as any leaning was shown
by the General Term yesterday it would seem that Judge Neilson’s associates are
scarcely prepared to accept his doctrine. Leaving them to dispose of the
question formally the public will still have its own opinions on the morality
of the proposition. In favor of the rule it may be said that its tendency will
be to make men and women more prudent and circumspect in their social
intercourse. A forethoughtful young man will be extremely careful about
approaching a young woman with amiable warmth or with the faintest show of
kindly regard, if his genial overtures are to conclude him in a promise of marriage,
despite a precautionary and positive disavowal of matrimonial intent. Such a
rule of law, rigidly enforced, would make cordial companionship among other
than people already married unsafe; and that universal and more or less
charming activity described by the elastic term “flirtation” a pursuit ranging
from the absolutely innocent to the extremely perilous would be limited to
other men’s wives and other women’s husbands. This might be of doubtful
advantage. But upon the whole it would work no harm were there something more
of restraint imposed on the social intercourse of single people of opposite
sexes. This is what might be gained morally by the proposed new rule. On the
other hand it may be said that such a rule would impair the gravity and delicacy
of the marriage contrast. To say that it is one of the most serious of
contracts is to repeat one of the most hackneyed of truisms. So is it to say
that it ought not to be lightly entered upon, that it should be thoughtfully
made, and with the fullest consent and the clearest understanding of both
parties to it. It is to be feared that if Judge Neilson’s ruling were
relentlessly reduced to practice not only many “implied” engagements would be
made lightly but life-long responsibilities would be assumed unintentionally
and unconsciously. The thought might be amplified. Indeed it amplifies itself,
and forces us to the conclusion that there would be no social safety save in
the absolute non-intercourse of unmarried men and women. The decision to be
pronounced by the General Term of the City Court is therefore very important
and will be awaited with interest not free from anxiety.

When one considers the bizarre outcome, this case is one of
the most remarkable cases of a probable female serial killer.

***

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 4):Jessie Higbee, a neatly dressed and prepossessing young country woman,
was placed in jail last evening. Against her name on the slate was written the
common-place charge of lunacy, but behind that is the accusation of a crime so
horrible as to he almost incredible.

The unnatural mother is accused of poisoning four of her
children was arsenic. One at a tune they died from the same fearful drug, but
not until the last little life had been taken was suspicion aroused.

She next made a futile attempt on her own life with the same
poison. Since then she has attempted to kill her husband. She is undoubtedly a
mad woman, however, and this fact is the only thing that relieves the horror of
her awful deeds.

Until the past three months there were no signs of mental
failing on the part of the mother, and until an examination of the bodies,
which took place here yesterday, she was thought to be perfectly sane, her
strange actions in the past having been attributed to grief over the first
child’s death.

The unfortunate woman is a native of this city, hut since
her marriage had been living on a plantation in Meade county. Her husband is
well known and is one of the most prominent farmers in that section. No
definite cause has been assigned for the strange and unnatural crimes. Until
the death of the first child she was remarkable for her devotion and care of
her little ones.

The first murder was committed on the evening of October 14,
and the others followed at intervals of two weeks. During the illness of each
child the mother showed a stolid indifference which her friends and physician
construed as grief. Each murder was carefully planned and summarily executed.
Though every child was attacked with the same symptoms and died with the same
cramps which accompany arsenic poisoning, the suspicion of no one was aroused
until after the death of the fourth child, when the mother attempted her own
life.

The woman is twenty-three years of age, and was the mother
of five children, the oldest of which was eight years of age. It was only for
the sake of the fifth child, and in order to save its life from the inhuman
mother, that the husband told his suspicions and suggested a post mortem
examination of the children. It was then for the first time learned that they
were the victims of their mother’s work, and that while pretending to nurse
them delicacies before sending them to bed, she was in reality arranging for
their death.

On the night of October 14, Mr. Higbee was awakened by the
shrieks of the youngest child, not quite a year old. A physician was procured,
and every effort made to relieve its suffering. The attempt was useless,
however, and after thirty hours’ illness the first victim died. Its death was
attributed by the physician who saw it when dying, to cerebral trouble. On
October 2, another child, two years old, died after thirty hours’ illness. In
this case, as in the former, the symptoms were confined to the nervous system,
without much nausea and with no intestinal irritation.

The cause of this death was pronounced as cerebro-spinal
meningitis.

On November 13 the third child died. This victim was two
years older than the second, and was arrested in very much the same way. Owing
to the extreme thirst, the vomiting and purging which attended this death, the
physicians were thrown off their guard, and it was also attributed to
cerebro-spinal meningitis.

During the illness, sufferings and deaths of each of these
victims, Mrs. Higbee moved about the sick rooms, fulfilling the physicians’
instructions and administering the medicines at the right time without showing
any signs of grief, or betraying herself as the author of their deaths. Her
manner more than anything else threw the husband and physicians off their
guard, and quieted any suspicion which may have been aroused.

After the death of the third child her actions were strange,
but this was attributed to her suppressed grief. She seldom spoke, and moved
about the house with a rat-like stillness.

On December 8, the day before the oldest child and the last
victim was taken ill, Mrs. Higbee expressed herself as very anxious about the
child’s health, and asked her husband if he thought the patient looked well. He
replied that he thought she was looking unusually well, and prayed she would
not suffer the fate of the other children. At this the mother replied that no
one could tell when they were going to die, and that she had a presentiment
that they all would be dead inside of two weeks. The next morning before
Hallie, the oldest child, started to school, Mrs. Higbee told her not to bother
about her lunch for school, as she would arrange it herself. While the rest of
the family were out of the room she buttered several biscuits, and when the
child came in, had them wrapped up in a napkin. The mother kissed the child
good-bye, and told her to come home a soon as school was over. During the
morning, while the child was absent Mrs. Higbee called her husband, and again
began asking about the absent child’s health. He attempted to reassure her, but
she was not to be comforted, and several times was heard to say to him that she
was certain the child would die as the others had.

The first intimation which Mr. Higbee had that his wife was
murdering his children was the fact that is was scarcely an hour after she had
ceased talking about the child at school when the little one returned,
suffering from cramps, as the other victims had been attacked. In two hours she
relapsed into unconsciousness, and remained so until death. The husband then
told his fears to the attending physician, and requested him to make a post-mortem
examination. This, however, was so bitterly opposed by the mother that the
matter was dropped. She became indignant when she learned what was intended,
and threatened to kill any one who would attempt it.

“I will be dead very soon myself,” she said to her husband,
“and they cut me up if they choose, but no one shall cut my children.”

Her grief was, apparently, so real that husband’s suspicions
were, for a time, allayed.

Two days after Mrs. Higbee was found in a spasmodic
condition and suffering from pains similar to those which her children had had.
Dr. Pusey, who was present at the time, diagnosed her case and discovered that
she was suffering from the same poisonous effects which the children had done.
He then felt assured that after attempting the life of her husband and killing
four of her children, she was making an effort to take her own life.

Mr. Higbee, after a time remembered that three months
previous he had bought a box of “rough on rats,” but had not seen it since he
had brought it home. He remembered having asked his wife if she had seen it,
and she said that she had taken it from the dining-room, where he had left it,
and put it in his tool chest, it could not be found there, and the point was
not pressed.

Dr. Pusey, of this city, who was well acquainted with the
family was called for consultation. Mrs. Higbee and the remaining child were
sent with Mrs. Higbee’s mother to this city, where they have been since. Dr.
Pusey, Dr. Greenby, of West Point, Dr. J. C. Lewis, of Tiptop, and several
other physicians then made a post mortem examination of the two last children
who had died. Their stomachs were found to be congested, but presented no
points of ulceration. The unusual engagement of the brain and the spinal chord
would have left the physicians in doubt but for the analysis which was
completed in this city yesterday by Prof. James Lewis Howe. This analysis
showed that a very large quantity of arsenic was in the tissues, and in every
part of the body which was analyzed.

When the husband was informed that his suspicions were
corroboration his grief was pitiable. He then told that he and his wife had not
live happily together for the past six months, and feared that her death was
the outcome of her unhappiness. Dr. Pusey, who is regarded as an expert on the
subject of insanity, had a careful review of the case and examined the
condition of the mother. He pronounced it an unmistakable case of puerperal
insanity, brought out by too rigid child breeding and continuous nursing. Her
mental condition was aggravated by loneliness and remorse. From the first she
showed an insane jealousy of her husband and upbraided him for faithlessness.
Nothing he could say had the slightest effect upon her, and she stood firm in
the belief that he wished to get a divorce.

Mr. Higbee left last evening for his home in Meade county in
order not to be present at his wife’s arrest, which was decided upon as soon as
it was conclusively proven that she was the cause of her children’s death.

When taken into custody, Mrs Higbee showed the same
indifference which had characterized her actions from first to last. She walked
into her cell composed, and quiet. When asked the names of her three youngest
children, she said she has forgotten them and preferred not to speak of them.

The only remaining child is a girl six years of age, with
light hair and blue eyes. She cried bitterly and clung to her mother when the
latter was placed in the patrol wagon and driven to jail. Dr. Pusey says that
in all his experience he had never come across a case so paradoxical and
baffling. There is no doubt about her being insane, but if would be a difficult
thing for any one who is not a specialist to imagine her so. I have never
seen a similar case, or a more horrible or
pathetic one.”

[“Poisoned. - Horrible and Almost Incredible Story of
Insanity and Death. - Four Children of Mrs. Jesse Higbee Killed By Their Insane
Mother - Destroying Her Little Ones She Attempts to Kill Herself and Husband. -
The Crime Committed With Such Cunning At to Baffle Unsuspecting Physicians. -
The Murderess In Jail.” The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Ky.), Dec. 19, 1890,
p. 7]

***

FULL
TEXT (Article 2 of 4): Louisville. Jan. 1. – The inquest in the case of the
death of the four children of Jesse Higbee, at Muldraugh, near this city was
concluded Tuesday [Dec. 30, 1890]. The verdict is that the mother, Mrs. Julia
Higbee, poisoned the children and is insane. Alfred Higbee, a relative,
testified that he believed the mother poisoned the children; he did not believe
her insane, and he thought she intended to kill the rest of the family.

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 4): Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Higbee did
not go to Meade county after Mrs. Higbee’s dismissal in the Circuit Court last
Monday, but they say they will make their home in Louisville. They are living
with Mr. Higbee’s mother, at Seventh and Oak streets, and Mr. Higbee will go
into some kind of business here. He still maintains his wife's innocence of the
charges against her, and declares that she is any thing but an insane woman.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

“WOMEN ARE NOT VIOLENT.” - The biggest myth of all time. (And
this myth was invented in the late-20th century).

***

The following quote by expert Jack Levin, director of the
Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University in Boston
and author of the book “Extreme Killing.” Extreme Killing: Understanding
Serial and Mass Murder [Sage Publications, Inc; 1 edition, 2005] on the
subject of family annihilation is frequently repeated in the popular press:

“The pattern [of family annihilation cases] is so strong.
It’s almost always a husband-father who methodically executes the members of
his family. He plans the attack far in advance. He’s suffered a prolonged
period of frustration and depression. He experiences what he sees as the
catastrophic loss of his children. He blames everybody but himself for his
problems.”

It is not clear what “almost always” is meant to signify.
But the effect of this phasing is to lull the hearer or reader into forgetting
about VbW (Violence by Women).

***

►• ►• Don't miss the collection of remarkable (and
forgotten -- until now) IMAGES at the bottom of this post.

***

The “pattern” Dr. Levin describes does not however comport
with findings in newspaper reports where such familicides are far from “almost
always” deeds done by men. In fact family annihilation by women appears so
often in sources that are consulted for the purpose of researching a different
type of crime – serial murder – that collecting them all has been an impossible
task. An effort will be made here to begin to examine historical cases of
female perpetrated family annihilation.

***

With regard to the family annihilator with a worry over
child custody who “experiences what he sees as the catastrophic loss of [the
perpetrator’s] children” we can offer up many, many compelling cases showing
that the “gendered” criminological approach. When expressed with such language
that deflects from female perpetrators as “almost always” in reference to the
male sex as what is commonly thought of as “the violent sex,” the
generalizations tend to cause the reader to imagine incorrectly that female
aggression is uncommon and nonthreatening.

***

Here is a typical statement of criminological “fact” which
is not a fact but rather a bold-faced lie that comes from ideological academics
who subscribe to the fallacy of fundamentalist social constructionism:

“A woman usually kills her husband only in self defence but
almost never takes the lives of her children as part of the attack, a leading
criminologist said today. [Paul Carter, Police
Reporter, “Murder-suicide defies usual criminal pattern,” AAP (Australian
Associated Press), Mar. 21,
2005, p. 1]

***

CHECKLIST: Family Annihilation cases involving 2 or more family
members murdered on the same day:

Cases involving a child custody dispute are not included.
They are to be found at and at:

A recent (2012) master’s thesis takes on the problem of
academic failure to study female criminality and the specific type of crime
called “family annihilation,” in particular.

Katie Fleming, “The Female Family Annihilator, Restructuring
Traditional Typologies: An Exploratory Study,” A Thesis Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degreeof Master of Arts in The Faculty of Social Science and Humanities
Criminology University of Ontario Institute of Technology June 2012.